The Beauty Of One-Console Domination

Many cite Sony's hubris with the Playstation 3 as resounding evidence that a console company should never dominate the market again. As we push forward into the 8th Generation of gaming, many wonder if Sony will return to their top spot and what that would mean for gamers. GameNTrain looks into the past to see if one-console domination would be as awful as some people think.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
RIP_Cell1927d ago

What in the world would gamers want one console to dominate, we already know how Sony is like when they have a dominant market share in PS2, you get the $599 PS3 and they tell people they should get a second job to afford one. Sony being friendly to indie developers on PS4 and a $399 price is exactly because of competition and they are losing market share this gen.

dedicatedtogamers1927d ago (Edited 1927d ago )

I think the point being made was that Sony's arrogance with PS3 does not suddenly erase the very real and very awesome library on the PS1 and PS2, both of which were due in large part to the fact that PS1 and PS2 dominated their generations.

And as we saw with Xbox One, a company doesn't have to dominate the market in order to make stupid mistakes. Dominating the market and the resulting arrogance is - at best - only somewhat related.

ShinMaster1926d ago

Exactly ^

The success of PS2 was not the reason why the PS3 was priced high. There were other factors you are completely ignoring.

claudionmc1926d ago


Totally agree. PS3 manufacture cost was $800+

It is totally different from PS2 and now PS4

Ragthorn1926d ago

I know right, it looked overpriced at first, but if you actually thought and saw through the black outside. They were using a high tech thing back in the day (2006), blu-ray reader which alone would cost more than the PS3 to get a blu-ray player.

pedrof931927d ago (Edited 1927d ago )

They did lose some market share, but ended re-taking a lot of it in the past 3-2 years.I mean they overcome Xbox 360, with one year less and the fact that people got more than one 360 cuz of the RROD.

Sony learned their lesson, while microsoft applies the typical american capitalistic model to get more money without respecting their fanbase.

lawgone1927d ago

Right, only America likes making money. Ha.

kewlkat0071927d ago

"Right, only America likes making money. Ha."

I think pedrof93's on to something...

Hicken1927d ago

Note the "without respecting their fanbase."

DragonKnight1927d ago

"Right, only America likes making money. Ha."

That's not even remotely close to what he meant. America's culture is highly geared towards capitalism and that generally tends to be bad for consumer interests.

On Topic: I think the only way there could ever be only one console on the market is if it were a group investment where one company didn't make or profit from the sale of the console and every developer had to put out real quality games. That's never going to happen though.

Different philosophies are good for the most part until they start messing with consumer rights on a basic level, or generally try to turn the industry towards a completely opposite, foreign path solely for the interest of big business and not consumer interests.

That being said, the PS1 and PS2 dominated for a reason, and I don't think anyone had a problem with their dominance considering how many epic games were created. If we can see something like that again, what would their be to complain about?

starchild1927d ago

Capitalism isn't the problem. Generally consumers benefit in an open free market system where the producers of goods compete for the buying dollars of the consumers. But also remember that we are all consumers and we are all producers, there is no dichotomy.

If consumers don't like what Microsoft is offering, believe me, they will suffer for it. Same goes for Sony or any other producer of goods.

It's infinitely better than having a central authority tell you what you have to buy.

MikeMyers1927d ago (Edited 1927d ago )

"That being said, the PS1 and PS2 dominated for a reason, and I don't think anyone had a problem with their dominance considering how many epic games were created. If we can see something like that again, what would their be to complain about?"

Oh gee, I don't know, how about a company being complacent and charging $600 for a game console. All while not listening to game developers and not giving them good tools to work with. I'm sure you'd have a huge problem if the Xbox One dominated.

The fact is we don't want any company to dominate. When Nintendo did they required 3rd party developers to adhere to their restrictions like only being allowed to have so many titles per year.

Why would we want Microsoft to dominate and force developers to pay high fees to patch games?

Competition is good for the industry. You really think Sony would have dropped the price so quickly on the PS3 if it weren't for the Wii and Xbox 360? You think Sony would have focused as much on PSN if it weren't for Xbox Live?

Sony has listened to developers when creating the PS4 at a time when Sony had stiff competition. Meanwhile after the most successful system of all time (the PS2) Sony decided to come out with a $600 game system and became very arrogant. The system had a weak line-up of games, high profile titles kept getting delayed and they basically rested on their laurels more worried about killing off HD-DVD than being a game platform.

starchild1927d ago

Anyway, how would this be good for gamers in general?

In this scenario, only Playstation owners would benefit since there would be more games on that platform. It obviously wouldn't benefit gamers on other platforms.

The same amount of games would be made either way.

I also don't believe that there was anything special about the PS1 or PS2 eras of gaming. Those consoles were dominant and that resulted in more games being exclusive to those platforms, but I was still playing on the PC and other console platforms as well. It didn't really change anything, except that I had to play more of my games on Playstations.

Games are more expensive to make these days and virtually every 3rd party game is going to need to be multiplatform in order to recoup dev costs and hopefully make a profit.

I think gaming is better than ever, and part of that is because we have a lot of competition between the platforms and between the games themselves.

ZodTheRipper1927d ago

^I don't think that Sony makes the same mistake again as "being arrogant". They tried, they failed, they learned from it, like humans usually do. Microsoft did the same recently and had to change it's policies in order to avoid a desaster.

On the other hand, of course competition is good for the market. But I have no sympathy for Microsoft's approach to gaming and their policies in general.

I would rather have it battled out between Sony and Nintendo because they, in my opinion, have the right approach you need when offering a gaming console - products with gamers in mind and lots of first party support, no need to buy timed exclusives just to get people buying the device. They invest in games and not into strategies to get an advantage of the competition.

plaZeHD1927d ago

"Sony learned their lesson, while microsoft applies the typical american capitalistic model to get more money without respecting their fanbase."
Oh, that must be why Sony are making you pay to play online.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1927d ago
Xof1927d ago


America seems to really ****ing love monopolies.

JamieL1927d ago

That's as insightful as me saying Xof sure love's stupidity, because of this comment. As an American, I can assure you that is the furthest thing from the truth as you could get.
"America seems to really ****ing love monopolies", really? Is that why we have laws to keep monopolies from happening? MS is a good example of America not letting monopolies ride.

Xof seems too really ****ing love to make stupid, unrealistic observations.

Xof1927d ago

Fine, fine.


They're like monopolies, but legal in the USA, and we've got tons of 'em.

1927d ago
plaZeHD1927d ago (Edited 1927d ago )

Microsoft was there to stop Sony, and they did a good job.

edgeofsins1927d ago

They sold PS3 at a loss. Yeah, that was so rude. Selling $800 machines with Bluray for only $600 when the next thing up was at least $1000 for only a bluray player that had worse support and quality.

xJumpManx1926d ago

They forced Blue ray upon people who did not want or need it. Just like Microsoft is doing with the Kinect on the xbox one.

edgeofsins1926d ago


Bluray is an extremely important factor. MGS4 was exclusive because only Bluray could fit that game and it still needed a few installations.

Bluray isn't something that gets in the way. It doesn't make you adjust, unless you hate seeing more robust and high definition content.

Almost everyone wanted Bluray. There is no reason not to.

Don't forget there console came with wifi inside, rechargeable batteries for controllers, and more memory out of the box. Bluray isn't the only thing. It was much more value then 360.

Bluray is not even close to being as much of an issue as Kinect. I can't talk to my console at night when people are sleeping and I definitely don't want to use my hands for gesturing when I can just instantly click a button on the controller without worry of mess up in recognition.

ShinMaster1926d ago (Edited 1926d ago )

Are you kidding!? Comparing Blu-ray to Kinect?
That doesn't even make sense. One is useful and the other isn't. Sony also included a DVD drive with the PS2. Was that "shoving it down our throats" too?

Wh15ky1926d ago

I didnt buy an hdtv till 2008 and as soon as I did I started looking at which hd console to buy.

Two main factors helped me make my decision - the hardware problems associated with the 360 put me off off buying it and bluray inclusion made the PS3 a no brainer.

TekoIie1926d ago (Edited 1926d ago )


"Are you kidding!? Comparing Blu-ray to Kinect?
That doesn't even make sense. One is useful and the other isn't"

Both ramp up the price of the console with very little benefit to the consumer.

"Sony also included a DVD drive with the PS2. Was that "shoving it down our throats" too?"

No because it benefited the consumer -_- (what about this do you not get). Using Cartridges disadvantaged Devs and Consumers, just compare the manufacturing costs of dvds to cartridges and you'd see.

edgeofsins1926d ago


Bluray offers very little? You are now invalid.

Storage space is everything when it comes to technology.

PS1 did not have DVD. It had regular CD-ROM. You were clearly talking about the PS1 and N64 era when you spoke of cartridges.

PS2 DVD compared to the PS1 CD-ROM is a good example of PS3 bluray to PS2 DVD. The storage space is a world of difference, literally it can allow more game worlds.

Bluray doesn't get in the way. It paved the way for better content and it solves games getting in your way with multiple game discs.

Whether you think it or not bluray is something you need if you want to stick with gaming on consoles.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1926d ago
Mystogan1927d ago

This article is full of shit. He acts like we didn't get good games on any other platform then the Playstation,the Xbox and Gamecube had plenty of awesome games.

This Gen we had better games then any other Gen.

From Mass Effect to Metal Gear Solid. Both started on one platform and ended up on the other as well, we had tons and tons of blockbuster games. There are games that wouldn't have been possible if one console was dominating.

it would be a sad day when one of the Three stops making consoles. Unfortunately, I don't see Nintendo staying in the race very long with the Wii U.

3-4-51927d ago

Why do perverts love things dominating other things ?

It's weird.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1926d ago
Maddens Raiders1927d ago (Edited 1927d ago )

The author says, "I am a firm believer in software – not hardware – competition."

Speaking strictly for myself, I am a firm believer in PlayStation® exclusives; if that means said console is dominating then so be it.

"What gamers need to realize is that when one console dominates, we all win."


I would too would say, all gamers won with these machines...

Xof1927d ago

You really think the PS1 would have been so good if Sony wasn't competing with Nintendo?

Or the PS2 so good if Sony wasn't up against Nintendo and Sega?

Or the PS3 and Microsoft and Nintendo?

Competition is good for consumers. A lack of competition results in the proliferation of anti-consumer practices.

dedicatedtogamers1927d ago

Read the article. The argument isn't for NO competition. Obviously Nintendo and Microsoft are still around despite the domination of the PS1 and PS2, right?

The argument is for competition between software (only possible if one console leads the pack by a wide margin) instead of competition between hardware.

cee7731927d ago

yes nintendo chose to continue to use carts for the n64 era that was there downfall.

PS2 came and destroyed the dreamcast it was no competition at all even tho the DC did bring some cool games but it only lasted around 2 years :(

Pisque1927d ago

Maddens... Get a life...

ShaunCameron1927d ago

Um. The PS3 didn't dominate the 7th Generation. It's still well behind the Wii in overall sales LTD and only just recently surpassed the XBox 360.

RedHawkX1927d ago

i agree! in the last of us we trust!

RedHawkX1927d ago

when sony dominates we all win!. we seen nintendo dominate and the wii u was a loss for all of us. x360 dominated and all we got was the same games over and over and people being dumb in online games trying to get achievements.

kewlkat0071927d ago

"What gamers need to realize is that when one console dominates, we all win."

lol...Oh Maddens.

VoiceMale1926d ago (Edited 1926d ago )

no logic behind your comment....

it was competition that brought the ps1 to life because of a broken deal between Sony and Nintendo to collaborate on making of a console

Sony and Nintendo could not agree on the same direction and Nintendo being cocky figured they do their own thing and went cartridge again ....

so Sony decided to make their own console and the PlayStation was born heading in disc direction

nothing good comes from domination doesn't last long and choices and preferences gets compromised

ppl that agrees that domination is better off is only thinking that way because they are seeing it from the angle that their console of choice is the dominating brand...try thinking about it from the angle that it's a brand your not very fund of and try living in that world

games that were better off with competition
NBA 2k: when live wasnt around...2k became stagnant and boring after live never showed up 2 years in a row

madden : bought out NFL license and took heat every year since for being stagnant as well for not being innovative

the complete platform game was.made all.together better ..challenging Mario brought to life sonic and crash bandicoot

ever heard of competition breeds excellence?the world of sports is a manifestation of rivalries heck it what makes college sports so great...
siblings have rivalries

even jealousy is needed cause it drives humans to rivalry and try to accomplish more some just take it way too far and become consumed by it at times

in closing all I am saying is live and let live if domination comes to fruition in gaming then what we are left with isn't gaming at all

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1926d ago
FrightfulActions1927d ago

A monopoly is not a good thing. Competition breeds innovation and value. A monopoly is fantastic on a corporation, perhaps, but horrible for the consumer.

Anyone who has had the unfortunate experience of real-life should know this.

NatureOfLogic1927d ago

So developers competing with each other aggressively for one consoles huge and diverse userbase is bad? There's a reason many think that console gens where one console dominated is the best and had some of the best games. I believe the reason FPS became so common and there was less variety the gen, is due to the fact that there was a clear split interest in the three userbase. Xbox, shooters ; Playstation, diverse ; Nintendo, anything mario related.

superterabyte1927d ago

Competition breeds innovation is debatable.

kupomogli1926d ago (Edited 1926d ago )


It's entirely debatable depending on the situation and the fact that not all monopolies have been detrimental. Just because there's a monopoly doesn't mean someone can't impose a force on it depending on whether or not they're getting too greedy.

In the current situation, if one of the three console makers pushed the other two out of business, then there are still the software developers that make games. There's still the PC. The PC will never die so there will never be a monopoly that threatens the video game market.

Let's just look at how much innovation competition has made this gen. Instead of innovation, Microsoft purchases timed exclusives. Halo, Forza, and Fable launched on the Xbox, and are three exclusives we see time and time again on the 360, with announcements of the same titles on the Xbox One. Does Microsoft actually develop anything else but these three and shitty Kinect games? They have, games like Crackdown, but normally they don't.

Here's a further look at this gens innovation. First person shooters everywhere! Most of this generations innovation is adding a different style of gameplay to yet another first person shooter.

The PS2 wasn't by definition a monopoly, but pretty close. There were games like Shadow of the Colossus which released late in the systems life. It was a first party title yet that was innovative.

Because we've never actually had a gaming monopoly, we won't 100% know what would happen but there are third party developers and they are not part of this console monopoly, so they would try and make the best games possible to get people to purchase their offerings over the others.

We're no longer living in the past where we don't have any information on the games that are coming out. We have multiple sources to see if a new game would be good or bad. So while developers can release garbage games on a console like what happened with the Atari, people don't need to buy those games. It happened with the Wii and there was never a monopoly, it just sold a lot. The problem with the Wii was most games were pretty terrible with a few gems here and there. Competition sure as hell didn't help the Wii get more than a couple dozen good games. The couple dozen good games is debatable as it's not my opinion, but I edited it because a lot of Wii fans always list a lot of games, some I haven't played, and everyone's opinion differs.

theWB271927d ago

There is no "benefit" to hardware domination. We didn't just have one of the greatest generations of gaming because one console dominated.

Games cost more to make= they get released on more than one system. Make more money back. That's the sole reason there are less exclusives.

harkki861927d ago

greatest gens of gaming? i'm sorry but no. was it good? yeah of course, but it was also terrible. endless cod copies and dudebro shooters. endless sequels. endless dlc milking for almost every major release.

of course i am not attributing the bad things to a lack of a market leader. i am not saying "all of this bad stuff happened because no one dominated". but it is a part of the equation.

you said "games cost more to make = they get released on more than one system". you realize that the bigger the installed base, the bigger the potential for sales?

theWB271927d ago (Edited 1927d ago )

Endless COD copies? Or do you mean just FPS in general? I think people have a skewed view on history, especially when it comes to sequels. We got plenty of sequels back then too.

5 Battletoads in 3 years
Sonics 1-3- Sonic and Knuckles
Mario releases- too many to count
3 crash bandicoots on PS1 4 on PS2 n Xbox not counting the racing games based off the character
I could go one with that moot argument.

DLC- I went through this whole gen and I maybe spent 50 bucks on DLC and I don't feel like I missed out on anything. It's optional and I've yet to feel cheated by not buying nor pre=ordering anything. I owned both a 360 and PS3 for the whole gen.

Bigger install base does equal more potential for sales. But, as we see with the WiiU, if that install base isn't big enough then it won't be supported. Not everyone supports the dominate console...not everyone wants to game on the Playstation. So if it were dominate and developers didn't release their titles on the lower selling platform. It wouldn't make a person go out and buy a Playstation. They would just be losing out on more potential sells.

I didn't own a Sony console until this gen, and it still isn't my preferred console. Yet I still understand the X1 dominating wouldn't mean anything good.

PSN_ZeroOnyx1927d ago

@ theWB27

X1 dominate? Your hilarious!
Xbox has never dominated and isn't going to start. Hell the 360 couldn't even hold 2nd place even with a year head start.

lawgone1927d ago

@PSN_Zerowhatever... 1) Your ≠ you are. You're = you are. 2) Where did theWB27 say the XBox One would dominate? They said that it wouldn't be good if any console dominated, including the XBox One.

flipflopfacts1927d ago (Edited 1927d ago )

"There is no "benefit" to hardware domination."

you do realize that instead of developers would pump out games much quicker with less time of porting the games.

also more unified gaming community which result of less fanboyism. Since there is nothing to choose they wont fight over which one is better.

those are the benifits but i'm sure you know the other side. So i wont go over it with you.

theWB271927d ago (Edited 1927d ago )

Are you that blinded that you couldn't read what I wrote? I didn't write that the X1 was dominating. I didn't write that the 360 did either. I wrote that ANY console dominating wouldn't be good. Even though I prefer Xbox I wouldn't see the X1 dominating as a benefit. Take off those ignorant glasses you're wearing and see what I wrote instead of seeing XBOX-DOMINATE and think I wrote what you interpreted.

If games were pumped out much quicker because of one console wouldn't we see more developers still creating for one console? No one is forcing these developers to develop games for multiple platforms. No one forced Kojima to make MGS multiplat. Final Fantasy wasn't forced, nor Kingdom Hearts nor other games that decided to go multiplatform.

More unified gaming community would result in less fanboyism? Who gives a crap about what someone on the internet says about me preferring Xbox. Do you let that influence your decision? Do you flock with the heard on the forums you follow?

I'll yell it from the rooftops, I prefer to game on the Xbox platforms. Playstation is secondary. There were over 200 million consoles sold last would have been better had one console sold 120 million of those just to quell fanboys?

You and PSN_ZeroOnyx seem to gaming for popularity on teh internetz. THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO DOMINATION. Period.

We see it in games with Madden.
We've seen it through history with politics.
The proof is everywhere...monopolies and domination doesn't work and no one benefits.

flipflopfacts1927d ago (Edited 1927d ago )

people are developing for more than one platform to make more money cause the user base is spread over multi platforms... o.O?

uh...........developers want to make the most profit they can..............

then you have certain companies who buy as much exclusive games you can get. Sometimes i want to play the other games too.

Uhhh.....i have friends who argue over which console they have and everyday they're trying to convert one to the other. Sometimes its nice to just turn on one console and have all your friends all in the same place.

Fanboyism is a disease and it isn't just on the internet.

Also, not everyone can afford multiple consoles.

to tout "There is no "benefit" to hardware domination." is broad and short sighted

flipflopfacts1927d ago (Edited 1927d ago )

I like how someone is disagreeing that there is NO.....NO!....NO?!......No???? benefit to hardware domination.....really....serio usly. I'm done....there is no reasoning and being neutral with these people anymore.

as the reason i stated above those ARE the benefit. Though, outweighed by the bad, they are STILL benefits none the less.

as i stated below i would never agree to hardware domination it would not be in our best interest if we do have just 1 console to rule them all.

lawgone1927d ago (Edited 1927d ago )

@theWB27...I am completely with you. I've tried to point out the lunacy in any "gamer" wishing for their system to dominate and the rival to fail. That is the recipe for fewer choices, higher prices and less innovation. But it's fallen on deaf ears. Apparently, the most basic concepts of economics are no longer being taught in the classroom.

@flipflopfacts... Scenario: The PS4 dominates and XBox One fails. MS leaves the market. Sony decides to take larger percentage of profits off each game. Developers having no other viable options accept this. In order to retain their profits, they cut costs. #1 cost cutter jobs. Fewer people working on the games = worse games. (The preceding scenario would be true if XBox One dominated as well.) If you believe fanboyism is a disease, why are arguing against someone that dislikes it???

theWB271927d ago

I don't really get how what he says matters. If your friends prefer another console...let them. I don't see how hoping one console dominates would make gaming better. Obviously his friends wouldn't want to game on his preferred console since they don't have one already right?

Fanboyism is a choice...not a disease. People choose to champion one console over another to the point of being called a fanboy.

For me to tout that there is no benefit isn't short sighted. I gave you can look throughout history in almost all aspects of life and see that the "one that rules all" method doesn't work and never has.

TongkatAli1927d ago (Edited 1927d ago )

With a 0.8 rating from Greenpeace on how much Co2 emissions they release it would be better if Nintendo never existed. That is just fing disgusting for one of the richest companies in the world.

Let this sink in

Over 150 million DS sold
Over 100 million Wii
Over 30 million 3DS

+ all the other shit that fucks up our planet, we are so f***ed its not even funny. You know we're at the point that we cant even fix it ? We can't even fing fix it.

Nintendo has always done things for itself, not for the greater good , f Nintendo.

PigPen1927d ago

Sony is almost out the doors, they just need a little push. Lol

fsfsxii1927d ago

Nice try, they're back in the black.

RedHawkX1927d ago

I f'd nintendo last night. princess peach got a booty under that dress.

dcj05241927d ago

For the DS: Batteries don't freaking make co2 emisdion and the wii has a really low power consumsion rate. My god man seriously? Be more concerned about servers and how all of the planets in the solar system are heating up. Is there a wii on mars? No.

TongkatAli1927d ago (Edited 1927d ago )

Very cute replies guys. dc they didn't even get 1 let alone 2. Who I'm going to listen to ?

Sony got a 4 from the same report.

I leave you with this.

Nintendo ain't no saviour, their games are damn good, but they a straight up cancer to gaming. I love how you guys think that their hardware is so important when really, really homie, its always cheap low tech shit.

So chill with the whole they did a lot for us bs which you guys keep regurgitating. In the beginning someone else would have stepped up to the plate to a make a hardcore console with the perfect controller and games. You people think they invented the wheel for gaming, they didn't.

Nintendo is richer then Microsoft and Sony. They have existed for over 100 years. This is Patriots shit we are talking about, LOL!

Don't look at those stocks being low stock value for Nintendo as a bad thing, they don't need investors : D

Nintendo can really make a really fing power system, more powerful then XOne and PS4.

ShaunCameron1927d ago

Define "the greater good."

Mystogan1927d ago

If that's what it's all about then Microsoft is the cleanest console company.

They are the second cleanest tech company, only beaten by Intel.

I can't find the link right now Google is our friend.

TongkatAli1926d ago (Edited 1926d ago )

Yeah, here is the link you're looking for.

Here is a link saying Nintendo is the worst company on Earth.

You really think I'm making shit up ?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1926d ago